Briefly, we regard Neh. 10:32(31)c as a reasonably datable allusion to
the observance of Shemitah during the post-exilic period, but because of
the many doubts involved, forego its precise dating. (p. 158)

The doubts he refers to are those suggested by higher criticism.
Wacholder is uncertain whether the passage belongs to Ezra or Nehemiah,
whether it is connected with Artaxerxes I or Artaxerxes II, and whether it
belongs to this monarch's seventh year or twentieth year.

William H. Shea summarized Wacholder's ten sections of evidence in Symposium
on Daniel (Biblical Research Institute (1986), pp. 252-255). Unhampered by higher criticism
constraints, Shea takes the passage just as it reads and arrives at some
definite conclusions:

The biblical text describes the occasion upon which the people of Judah
took a pledge to observe the provisions of the Sabbatical year. This
occurred when they met to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles after
Nehemiah had repaired the walls and gates of Jerusalem. Nehemiah returned
to Palestine to accomplish this task in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I
(444/443 B.C., fall-to-fall). The first Sabbatical year which they took
the pledge to observe began in the same fall of 443 they met to celebrate
this festival.

Well put, but there is one major problem due to a minor mathematical
error: Artaxerxes's twentieth year was in
445/444 BC, not 444/443. And Shea would wholeheartedly agree given the
fact that he is certain that Artaxerxes' seventh year is 458/457 BC (cf.
p. 225).

If the twentieth year was in 445/444, then Tishri in the twenty-first
year would be in 444 BC, not 443. This supports Zuckermann's sabbatical dates.
[table]

Admittedly, this line of evidence is not real strong, since it is based
on the assumption that the pledge of Neh. 10:31 was made in a sabbatical
year. Shea correct summarizes:

This text does not prove that that
year was a Sabbatical year, but its chronological fit with the years
listed below adds significance to this part of the service on that
occasion. [return]

Wacholder acknowledges that either Zuckermann's sabbatical dates or his
own could fit the historical record of this incident, but he considers his
dating "preferable" (p. 160).

Though not explicitly stated in his paper, Wacholder assumes that
Josephus's dating of Alexander's grant is incorrect. He postulates that the
date of the grant was really in the spring or summer of 331 BC after
Alexander had appointed a governor over Cole-Syria, while Josephus plainly
put the date of the grant in the previous fall around 6 months earlier.

If we thus revise the source, at some point we can no longer use that
source to support our position. If an unemended source is untrustworthy as
far as the date goes, how can we use it to prove the date when a sabbatical
year occurred?

Suppose for the sake of argument that Wacholder's hypothesis is correct,
and that the grant occurred in the spring of 331 BC, not the fall of 332.
This would have still been within a sabbatical year according to Zuckermann.
Whether that year or the next was a sabbatical year, either way the Jews
would have been concerned about paying taxes during sabbaticals, and would
have requested an exemption from Alexander. Either they had no harvest that
year with which to pay the new taxes, or they were anticipating not having
anything to pay the taxes with the following year.

Thus even if Wacholder's hypothesis is correct, Zuckermann's dates can still
fit. [table]
[return]

If the siege cannot be dated beyond reasonable doubt, then the
associated sabbatical year likewise cannot be dated, and Wacholder
therefore concludes:

. . . the evidence from here alone is not conclusive. (p. 163)

Yet the lack of conclusiveness is apparent rather than real because of
certain discrepancies in his argument. To illustrate:

But the Maccabean books, like all other biblical sources,
without exception, take it for granted that Nisan was the first
month. (pp. 161, 162)

This is incorrect, since Nehemiah 1:1
and 2:1 is an explicit exception. Simply saying that these texts
are "probably corrupt" (n. 8, p. 155) does not change
this fact.

Other discrepancies appear when one analyzes his Table One,
reproduced below:

Source

Anno Sel.

B.C.E.

Shemitah

A.

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Tishri 164/Elul 163
Tishri 163/Elul 162

Tishri 164/Elul 163
Tishri 164/Elul 163

B.

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Oct. 164/Sept. 163
Nisan 163/Adar 162

Tishri 164/Elul 163
Tishri 164/Elul 163

C.

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Oct. 164/Sept. 163
Nisan 163/Adar 162

Tishri 164/Elul 163
Tishri 164/Elul 163

D.

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Nisan 163/Adar 162
Nisan 162/Adar 161

Tishri 163/Elul 162
Tishri 163/Elul 162

E.

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Oct. 163/Sept. 162
Nisan 162/Adar 161

Tishri 163/Elul 162
Tishri 163/Elul 162

A, B, and C are supposed to support Zuckermann, while D and E are
supposed to support Wacholder. [table]
Regarding B and C Wacholder says:

C accepts
B's reasoning, but, because of other alleged divergences between
the chronological schemes of the two Maccabean books, assumes that
I Macc. posits a Seleucid era which started in Nisan 311; II Macc.,
in October 312 B.C.E. (pp. 163)

Yet Table One plainly shows
that B and C are identical, not different. Furthermore,
"Nisan 311" in the quoted sentence should have read
"Nisan 312" if the 150th year is going to be 163/162.

D differs from E in that it
presumes an error in First Maccabees; . . . . (Ibid.)

The error presumed is really in 2 Maccabees, according to the
table. Only an assumed error in 2 Maccabees, not in 1 Maccabees,
will harmonize the data with Wacholder's dates.

. . . while E grants that I Maccabees
began the Seleucid era in October 312 and II Maccabees, in Nisan
311; both sources agree that Antiochus V's campaign occurred in
the spring or summer of 162. (Ibid.)

Table One shows instead 1
Maccabees commencing the Seleucid Era in Nisan 311, and 2
Maccabees in October 311. Shall we correct his table or his text?
Let's put the two possibilities side by side:

Source

Anno Sel.

B.C.E.

Shemitah

E. (Corrected Text)

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Oct. 163/Sept. 162
Nisan 162/Adar 161

Tishri 163/Elul 162
Tishri 163/Elul 162

E.
(Corrected Table)

II Macc. 13:1
I Macc. 6:20

149
150

Nisan 163/Adar 162
Oct. 162/Sept. 161

Tishri 164/Elul 163
Tishri 162/Elul 161

Neither appears acceptable. If we correct the table, 2
Maccabees ends up supporting Zuckermann, 1 Maccabees ends up
supporting neither, and neither account puts the campaign in the
spring or summer of 162. If we correct the text, we end up with a Seleucid Era
for 2 Maccabees that commences in October 311, over a year after
Seleucus's entry into Babylon.

The only way to make this line of evidence support
Wacholder's sabbatical dates is to either assume an error in 2 Maccabees
or assume that the Seleucid Era in 2 Maccabees commenced in the fall of 311 BC.
Thus we must use Zuckermann's sabbatical dates if we are going to avoid
rewriting the source and commencing the Seleucid Era unusually late. [table]
[return]

"4. The Murder of Simon the Hasmonean in 177 A.S."
(pp. 163-165)

Again without stating such, Wacholder has assumed that there is an error
in the source material. How then can it be relied upon to give any
sabbatical date? Wacholder states:

Josephus' dating of Simon's death during the Shemitah of 177 A.S. [Seleucid Era], which is equivalent to 135/34 B.C.E., offers unambiguous
testimony for the calendar of Sabbatical cycles appended to this study.
(p. 165)

Notice carefully what the above statement said: "Josephus' dating of
Simon's death during the Shemitah." Yet as Wacholder himself
quotes Josephus, Simon's murder by his son-in-law occurred as much as eight
months before the commencement of the sabbatical year, not four
months after its commencement:

Furthermore, Josephus adds in both the Bellum and Antiquities
that John Hyrcanus' efforts to avenge the heinous crime were futile, for
while John besieged Ptolemy's fortress, which Josephus calls Dagon,
"there came round the year in which the Jews are wont to be inactive,
for they observe the custom every seventh year, just as on the seventh
day." (p. 163)

Apparently, Wacholder felt that the murder had to be in February 134 BC
instead of February 135 BC. The only way to harmonize this with his
sabbatical dates is to have the murder take place during the
sabbatical instead of before its commencement, and assume Josephus to
be in error. Thus Wacholder is synchronizing February of the 177th year with
a sabbatical year rather than with the sixth year of the seven-year cycle. [table]

The chart below gives the various possible dates for the murder and the
sabbatical under the different dating schemes of the Seleucid Era:

SE Begins in:

Fall 313 BC

Spring 312 BC

Fall 312 BC

Spring 311 BC

177th Year
(Jewish Calendar):

Tishri 137 /
Elul 136

Nisan 136 /
Adar 135

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Nisan 135 /
Adar 134

Julian Year of Murder
(Around February):

136 BC

135 BC

135 BC

134 BC

Sabbatical Year (If Murder
Precedes Sabbatical):

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

Tishri 134 /
Elul 133

Sabbatical Year (If Murder
Is During Sabbatical):

Tishri 137 /
Elul 136

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

Now let's compare this with the data from the previous section, assuming
that 1 Maccabees is using the same dating scheme for both the 150th and the
177th year. Since the two sabbatical years in question must be 28 years
apart (177 minus 149 or 178 minus 150), only dates that are 28 years apart
are shown. According to Zuckermann, 136/135 was a sabbatical year. According
to Wacholder, the sabbatical year was 135/134.

SE Begins in:

Fall 313 BC

Spring 312 BC

Fall 312 BC

Spring 311

Sabbatical Year Synchronized
with Summer of 150th
Year:

Tishri 164 /
Elul 163

Tishri 164 /
Elul 163

Tishri 163 /
Elul 162

Tishri 163 /
Elul 162

Sabbatical Year Synchronized
with Shevat of 177th
Year:

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

Sabbatical Year Synchronized
with Shevat of 178th
Year:

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

The only way to have Wacholder's sabbatical dates work is to use a dating
scheme for the Seleucid Era that commences in the spring of 312 or the fall
of 311 BC for 1 Maccabees. Yet as we saw in the previous section, 1
Maccabees does not use either of these dating schemes for the siege of Beth-Zur.
Thus the only way to harmonize the data without assuming an error in either
1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, or Josephus is to use Zuckermann's
sabbatical dates. [table]

It is true that all the varying chronological statements by Josephus are
impossible to reconcile if left unemended. Yet if his testimony is tampered
with too much, then how can it be used to prove Wacholder's position? There
must be a certain level of trust in Josephus's testimony, or it cannot be used to
prove his case. That being said, we now examine several questions that have
a bearing on this section.

1. Should the year begin in the spring or fall? Wacholder maintains
that the years of the Seleucid Era must commence with Nisan. Notice that
this can still be done if one assumes that Josephus erred in placing the
murder before the sabbatical. Yet the sabbatical date arrived at is still
Zuckermann's regardless, since only Zuckermann's dates allow us to harmonize
a sabbatical associated with the 177th year with one in the 150th year.

2. Which scheme of Seleucid dating does 1 Maccabees use? That depends
on if we let Josephus answer that question. 1 Maccabees tells us that the
temple was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes in Kislev in the 145th year of
the Seleucid Era, and Josephus says that this was in the 153rd Olympiad (Antiq.,
bk. 12, ch. 5, sect. 4).

SE
Begins in:

Fall 313 BC

Spring 312 BC

Fall 312 BC

Spring 311

Kislev in
145th Year:

Fall 169 BC

Fall 168 BC

Fall 168 BC

Fall 167 BC

Kislev in
148th Year:

Fall 166 BC

Fall 165 BC

Fall 165 BC

Fall 164 BC

Olympiads are four-year periods that run from July 1 through June 30.

Olympiads:

152nd
| 153rd
| 154th

BC Dates:

169 | 168 | 167 | 166 | 165 | 164 | 163

Since the 153rd Olympiad ran from July of 168 to June of 164 BC,
commencing the Seleucid Era in the fall of 313 BC doesn't work at all, for the temple's desecration would occur in the
152nd Olympiad, not the 153rd.

For that matter, since Josephus synchronizes
1 Maccabees's date of the rededication of the temple in Kislev of the 148th
year with the 154th Olympiad (164 to 160 BC; Antiq., bk. 12, ch. 7,
sect. 6), his synchronisms rule out
entirely the first three schemes. Only a rededication in the fall of 164 BC
would synchronize with the 154th Olympiad. But this causes some definite
problems.

As can be seen from the table of the four schemes of the Seleucid Era dating under the first section, if we must use a Spring 311 beginning
for the Seleucid Era, we end up with a sabbatical date for the 150th year
that agrees with Wacholder's dates. Yet we are then left with the conclusion
that 2 Maccabees erred in identifying the siege of Beth-Zur with the 149th
year. 2 Maccabees should then have agreed with 1 Maccabees that this siege
occurred in the 150th year. That is the only way to synchronize the two
accounts if 1 Maccabees's Seleucid Era begins in the fall of
311.

But we also have 2 Maccabees 14:1-4 saying that three years after the
149th year was the 151st year. While there are three years from 149 to 151
inclusive, there is no way that there can be three years inclusive from 150
to 151. So we must keep the reading of 149 in 2 Maccabees 13:1.

If we do not tamper with the dates given in 2 Maccabees, we have but one
other option: Did somehow Josephus err in the Olympiads that he gave for the
148th and/or 145th year? In light of the following quote, perhaps:

But Antiochus, being very uneasy at the miseries that Simon had brought
upon him, he invaded Judea in the fourth year of his reign, and the first
year of the principality of Hyrcanus, in the hundred and sixty-second
olympiad. (Antiq. 13.8.2)

This takes us back to the subject of this section: Simon's murder and
John Hyrcanus's accession in the 177th year. The problem is that the 162nd Olympiad did not begin until July 1, 132 BC. Since Simon's murder and
Hyrcanus's accession took place in 134 BC at the latest, it occurred in the
161st Olympiad, not the 162nd. Since the existence of this discrepancy is indisputable, we have here an example of Josephus being one
Olympiad
off when pairing up Seleucid dates with Olympiads. Since we are talking
about the same general time period, he could easily have been off one year
in his reference to the 154th and/or the 153rd Olympiads.

The indisputable error of the synchronism of the 162nd Olympiad, though,
does have a bearing on whether or not Zuckermann's sabbatical dates are
correct, as we shall now see.

3. Has anyone attempted to synchronize a sabbatical with the 162nd Olympiad? Josephus gives us three different figures for the reign of
John Hyrcanus: thirty years, thirty-one years, and thirty-three years (Antiq.
20.10.1; 13.10.7; Wars 1.2.8). In contrast, Sulpitus Severus (d.
420 AD) gives us a figure of only twenty-six years (The Sacred History of
Sulpitius Severus, bk. 2, ch. 26). In view of the Hasmonean chronology that
Severus gives, it appears that he or whomever he was following was
attempting to place Simon's murder in the 162nd Olympiad:

[Hyrcanus] died, after having held the supreme power for twenty-six
years. After him, Aristobulus being appointed high-priest, ... At the
close of a year, he died. Then Alexander, his son, who was both king and
high-priest, reigned twenty-seven years .... He having left two young sons
named Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, Salina or Alexandra, his wife, held the
sovereignty for three years. Hyrcanus [II] held the chief power for
thirty-four years; but while he carried on
war against the Parthians, he was taken prisoner.

Then Herod, a foreigner, the son of Antipater of Askelon, asked and
received the sovereignty of Judaea from the senate and people of Rome. ...
Under this Herod, in the thirty-third year of his reign, Christ was born
on the twenty-fifth of December in the consulship of Sabinus and Rufinus.
Herod reigned four years after the birth of the Lord; for the whole period
of his reign comprised thirty-seven years. (bk. 2, ch. 26, 27)

While Severus cannot be correct regarding the year of Herod's death, we
can extract some helpful information. First of all, the consulship of
Sabinus and Rubinus occurred in 4 BC. Thus Severus has Herod beginning his
reign thirty-three years earlier in 37 BC. This is a fixed date from other
sources, the date Herod took Jerusalem by force, as shown under the next
section. Secondly, adding up the lengths of reigns from the first Hyrcanus
to the last Hyrcanus, we have a total of 91 years as given by Severus.
Adding these to 37 BC, we then have the first Hyrcanus beginning his
"twenty-six" years of reign in the spring of 128 BC, in the latter
end of the 162nd Olympiad.

Hasmonean Reigns

Hyrcanus
Aristobulus
Alexander
Salina or Alexandra
Hyrcanus [II]

26
1
27
3 + 34
91

If Severus allowed some time between the second Hyrcanus' capture by the
Parthians and Herod's beginning to reign, which could be expected, then we
have more than 91 years from the first Hyrcanus to Herod.

How much more? In actuality, there were three years between Hyrcanus's
capture and Herod's taking of Jerusalem, according to Josephus's account (Antiq.,
bk. 14, ch. 13-15). Soon after the capture Herod was given the kingship by Rome, and it
took him three years to make it good. Josephus tells us that Herod reigned
37 years after being given the kingship and 34 years after taking Jerusalem
(Antiq., bk. 17, ch. 8, sect. 1; Wars, bk. 1, ch. 33, sect. 8). Since Severus has the 37 years ending four years after the birth of
Christ in 4 BC, then he cannot be extending his reign back beyond 37 BC.
Moreover, Severus makes mention only of Herod's receiving the kingdom from
the Romans, thus indicating that he associated that event with the
commencement of Herod's 37-year reign, not his taking of Jerusalem. The Chronicle of
Eusebius gives the same dates for the beginning and end of Herod's reign.

That being so, if we add a minimal amount of time between Hyrcanus II's
capture and Herod's receiving the kingdom, we push back Hyrcanus I's
accession one year to the spring of 129 BC. This date allows a sabbatical
year to begin in the following fall while still in the 162nd Olympiad, and
while Hyrcanus was still in his first year of reign.

It therefore appears that Severus's chronology is an attempt, by him or
whomever he is following, to
synchronize the beginning of Hyrcanus' reign with the 162nd Olympiad, and
perhaps even with a sabbatical year in that Olympiad. Why is this
significant? Because only Zuckermann's sabbatical dates have a sabbatical
commencing in the 162nd Olympiad. That Olympiad ended on July 1, 128 BC, and
Wacholder's sabbatical does not commence until the following fall. [table]

The following table gives the sabbatical dates according to Zuckermann
and Wacholder in relationship to the 161st, 162nd, and 163rd Olympiads.

161st Olympiad
July 136 /
June 132 BC

162nd Olympiad
July 132 /
June 128 BC

163rd Olympiad
July 128 /
June 124 BC

Zuckermann's
Sabbatical Dates:

Tishri 136 /
Elul 135

Tishri 129
June 30, 128

July 1, 128 /
Elul 128

Wacholder's
Sabbatical Dates:

Tishri 135 /
Elul 134

None

Tishri 128 /
Elul 127

All things considered, it appears that this section is solidly in support
of Zuckermann, and that there is no good way to harmonize the data with
Wacholder's sabbatical dates. [return]

"5. Herod's Conquest of Jerusalem" (pp.165-167)

Some scholars other than Wacholder would like to have Herod conquer Jerusalem
in 36 BC instead, yet this is not possible. Twice Josephus informs us that the
Battle of Actium (summer of 31 BC) occurred in the seventh year of Herod's reign
(Antiq., bk. 15, ch. 5, sect. 2; Wars, bk. 1, ch. 19, sect. 3). If he took Jerusalem in 36 BC, then 31 BC would have been his
sixth year by non-accession-year reckoning, not his seventh year. So the data
Josephus gives us regarding the Battle of Actium mandates that Herod's taking of
Jerusalem be in 37 BC, not in 36 BC.

Year of
Herod's Reign:

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th
(Actium)

Fall-to-Fall
Calendar:

38 / 37

37 / 36

36 / 35

35 / 34

34/33

33 / 32

32 / 31

Spring-to-Spring
Calendar:

37 / 36

36 / 35

35 / 34

34 / 33

33 / 32

32 / 31

31 / 30

Concerning the earlier conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, Josephus writes:

. . . for although the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the
fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and
Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls . . . . (Ibid., bk.
14, ch. 4, sect. 3)

The 179th Olympiad began in the summer of 64 BC, and these men became consuls
in 63 BC. Thus the date of the city being taken must be 63 BC.

Concerning Herod's conquest of Jerusalem:

. . . they persisted in this war to the very last; and this they did while a
mighty army lay round about them, and while they were distressed by famine and
the want of necessaries, for this happened to be a Sabbatic year. (Ibid.,
bk. 14, ch. 16, sect. 2)

This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and
Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad,
on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical
revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under
Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after
twenty-seven years' time. (Ibid., bk. 14, ch. 16, sect. 4)

Some think that this conquest must be in 36 BC since 36 BC is 27 years later
than Pompey's conquest in 63 BC. However, if we use inclusive reckoning, similar
to what we must use for Herod's reign, 63 to
37 BC is indeed 27 years.

Notice that both conquests are said to have occurred on the same day, the day
of the "fast." More on this in a moment.

. . . nor was there any end of the miseries he brought upon them; and this
distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regent, who
was still in want of more, and in part by the Sabbatic year, which was still
going on, and forced the country to lie still uncultivated, since we are
forbidden to sow our land in that year. (Ibid., bk. 15, ch. 1, sect. 2)

Wacholder and others identify the "fast" as being the Day of
Atonement, though this opinion is by no means universal. If it were true, then
we would have Josephus making an obvious blunder in adjacent parts of his Antiquities.
He would be saying that 38/37 BC, when Herod
besieged Jerusalem, and 37/36 BC, the year after, were both sabbatical years. Of
course, two calendar years in a row can't both be sabbatical years.

In actuality, Josephus' testimony excludes the possibility that the
"fast" was the Day of Atonement:

When the rigor of winter was over, Herod removed his army, and came near to
Jerusalem, and pitched his camp hard by the city. Now this was the third year
since he had been made king at Rome; and as he removed his camp, and came near
that part of the wall where it could be most easily assaulted, he pitched that
camp before the temple, intending to make his attacks in the same manner as
did Pompey. (Ibid., bk. 14, ch. 15, sect. 14)

Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his
army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at
Rome; so he pitched his camp before the temple, for on that side it might be
besieged, and there it was that Pompey took the city. (Wars, bk. 1, ch.
17, sect. 8)

"When Herod, the son of Antipater, brought upon us Sosius, and Sosius
brought upon us the Roman army, they were then encompassed and besieged for
six months, till, as a punishment for their sins, they were taken, and the
city was plundered by the enemy." (Ibid., bk. 5, ch. 9, sect. 4)

Indeed, though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore
a siege of five months, till some of Herod's chosen men ventured to get upon
the wall, and fell into the city . . . . (Ibid.,
bk. 1, ch. 18, sect. 2)

To have the city taken on the Day of the Atonement after a siege of five
months would require that Herod arrive at Jerusalem in the second month. Yet it
is inconceivable that the rigor of winter would not be over until the second
Jewish month, roughly our month of May.

Adar 13, roughly early March, is not too early for war in Palestine, as
Nicanor's defeat indicates (1 Mac. 7:49; Antiq., bk. 12, ch. 10, sect.
5). Thus if Herod
approached Jerusalem by mid-Adar, five or six months would definitely be over
before Tishri 1. The "fast" should therefore refer to another day than
the Day of Atonement.

Also, using a spring-to-spring calendar, if Herod approached Jerusalem before
the new year commenced on Nisan 1, 37 BC, it would be the third year inclusive
since he had been appointed king by the Romans in early 40 BC, just as Josephus
twice specified (Ibid., bk. 14, ch. 15, sect. 14; Wars, bk. 1, ch.
17, sect. 8). If he instead approached Jerusalem six months before the Day of Atonement, the new year would have already
commenced, and it would have been during his fourth year inclusive that he began
to besiege Jerusalem.

If we identify the "fast" with that of Tammuz 17 instead of the Day of Atonement, as the
above evidence suggests that we should do, then Josephus is not forced to
contradict himself in adjoining portions of a single account. Therefore,
Josephus is referring to the same sabbatical year in the same calendar year,
before and after Herod's conquest of Jerusalem that occurred some time before
Tishri 1, 37 BC, probably on Tammuz 17. That makes this sabbatical year coincide with 38/37 BC in
harmony with Zuckermann's sabbatical dates. [table] [return]

"6. King Agrippa I Recites Deut. 7:15 in a
Post-Sabbatical Year" (pp. 167-169)

Wacholder's objection to Agrippa's reading the law in a post-sabbatical year
according to Zuckermann's dates (41 AD) is that "An incidental remark in
Josephus shows, however, that 40/41 could not have been a Shemitah." (p.
168). [table]
This remark has to do with Caius Caligula ordering that his statue be set
up in the Jewish temple. Many Jews subsequently went to the city of Tiberias to
plead with Petronius, the governor of Syria:

So they threw themselves down upon their faces, and stretched out their
throats, and said they were ready to be slain; and this they did for forty
days together, and in the mean time left off the tilling of their ground, and
that while the season of the year required them to sow it. (Antiq., bk.
18, ch. 8, sect. 3)

But as they could be no way prevailed upon, and he saw that the country was
in danger of lying without tillage; (for it was about seed time that the
multitude continued for fifty days together idle;) . . . (Wars,
bk. 2, ch. 10, sect. 5)

Wacholder writes:

We know that the turmoil in Judaea described by both Josephus and Philo
took place during the final months of the reign of Caligula, who was
assassinated on the twenty-fourth of January of 41 C.E. (p. 168)

Wacholder maintains that 40/41 AD could not have been a sabbatical year, for
why would then Josephus make a point of their voluntarily not sowing their crops
if they couldn't sow them anyway? The point would only make sense if 40/41 was
not a sabbatical.

Yet this conclusion is based on the assumption that we are talking about the
sowing of crops sometime between Tishri 22 and Caligula's death. Indeed, that is
when certain grain crops are sown which are later reaped in the spring, but that
cannot be what Josephus is talking about here. As Wacholder himself says:

Philo Alexandrinus, referring to the same incident records: "For the
wheat crop was just ripe, and so were the other cereals." (Ibid.)

While Josephus was not an eyewitness of these events, Philo was personally
involved. If these grain crops were just ripe, as Philo indicates, then we are
talking about the spring of 40 AD, not the fall. The neglected sowing Josephus
referred to must have been summer vegetables, not grain crops planted in the
fall.

In Palestine today, such summer vegetables are "planted after mid spring
when the danger of frost has passed and temperatures have begun to warm."
These include "tomato, squash, okra, snakecucumber, watermelon,
cantaloupe" (http://www.arij.org/pub/dryland/sec6.htm).

Mid spring would be around the beginning of May. Wheat in Palestine back then
was harvested in April, May, or June, depending on the area. Since the only
sowing that might coincide with ripe wheat would be of summer vegetables, this
must be what Josephus was referring to. That being so, there is no conflict with
such a sowing and Zuckermann's sabbatical dates, for the sabbatical would not
yet have begun.

Essentially, we are left in this section without a case for either
Zuckermann's or Wacholder's sabbatical dates. [table] The only case that really could be
made is the excluding of one date or the other, and that cannot be done with
this line of evidence. [return]

"7. Note of Indebtedness on a Papyrus of Wadi
Murabba`at" (pp. 169-171)

Josephus appears to have used a spring-to-spring calendar in his account of the Jewish
War:

Now this war began in the second year of the government of Florus, and the
twelfth year of the reign of Nero. (Antiq., bk. 20, ch. 11, sect. 1)

. . . at the same time began the war, in the twelfth year of the reign of
Nero, and the seventeenth of the reign of Agrippa, in the month of Artemisius
[Iyar.] (Wars, bk. 2, ch.14, sect. 4)

This defeat [of Cestius] happened on the eighth day of the month Dius, [Marchesvan,]
in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero. (Wars, bk. 2, ch.19, sect. 9)

Since the year of reign did not change between the beginning of the revolt in
the second Jewish month and the defeat of Cestius in the eighth Jewish month,
both in 66 AD, it appears that he was indeed using a spring-to-spring calendar.
For certain, he was not dating Nero's reign from either
Tishri or the anniversary date of Nero's accession.

Possibly Josephus was using accession-year reckoning, for non-accession-year
reckoning would make the summer of 66 AD Nero's thirteenth year instead of his
twelfth. Then again, he may have been using an incorrect, later date for Nero's
accession, since he has Nero reigning but thirteen years and eight days (Wars,
bk. 4, ch. 9, sect. 2).

Regarding the destruction of the temple in the fifth Jewish month
in 70 AD, Josephus writes:

. . . its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of
Vespasian . . . . (Wars, bk. 6, ch. 4, sect. 8)

And regarding the conquest of Jerusalem in the sixth Jewish month of 70 AD:

And thus was Jerusalem taken, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian,
on the eighth day of the month Gorpeius [Elul]. (Wars, bk. 6, ch. 10,
sect. 1)

If the summer of 70 AD was Vespasian's second year, Josephus must have been
using
non-accession-year reckoning.
Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by his troops in July of 69, and did not
begin to reign officially until December of 69. Additionally, if Josephus was
dating Vespasian's reign from December of 69, then we have further evidence of
his use of a spring-to-spring calendar for these reigns.

Wacholder's paper refers to the dating used in the Bar Kochba revolt, a
revolt lasting three and a half years from early or mid 132 to mid or late 135
AD (n. 92, p. 179). He cites a document published by Yadin, which was dated in Iyyar (second
month) of the first year of the revolt. He also cites Mur 22 and Mur 30,
documents dated in Heshvan (eighth month) of the first year and Tishri of the
fourth year.

In order for Mur 30 to be dated in the fourth year of a revolt that lasted
three and a half years, non-accession-year reckoning is required. A
spring-to-spring calendar must have been used, or else Mur 22 would have been
dated in the second year of the revolt, not the first.

The first revolt that began during the reign of Nero was reckoned similarly,
according to numismatic evidence. Shekels exist bearing dates of year 1 through
year 5 (B. Kanael, "Notes on the Dates Used During the Bar Kokhba
Revolt," Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), n. 11, p. 40). The revolt began in the spring and summer of 66 AD, and was squelched in
the summer of 70 AD. Only by using non-accession-year reckoning and a
spring-to-spring calendar can we have a
year 5 of the revolt by the summer of 70 AD.
[return]

"8. Was the Second Temple Destroyed During a
Sabbatical or a Post-Sabbatical Year?" (pp. 171-176)

Of course, there are some things in the Talmudic statement that cannot possibly be
true, like the year of the destruction of Solomon's temple. By placing the
destruction of Solomon's temple in 421 BC instead of the 586 BC, the rabbis
vaporized 165 years of history. This was in order to support a non-messianic
interpretation of Daniel 9's 70 weeks and/or to avoid finding a fulfillment of
those 70 weeks in the ministry of Christ. But as Wacholder
admits:

To be sure, the fact that other parts of Rabbi Jose's statement reflect
midrashic chronography does not exclude the possibility that his dating of
the Shemitah nearest to the destruction of the Herodian Temple in 68/68 [sic]
is necessarily inaccurate. It may just be the historical grain upon which
Rabbi Jose built the rest of his hermeneutics of Daniel 9:24. (p. 174)

So Rabbi Jose may have been building his faulty chronology on the
"historical grain" of an actual synchronism between the sabbatical
cycle and the destruction of the second temple. And this is all the more plausible given the fact that Ab 9, when
reckoned
based on the visibility of the crescent, could have fallen on a Sunday in 421
BC (Aug. 22) and 70 AD (Aug. 5), in agreement
with Rabbi Jose.

Is August 22 too late for Ab 9? At some point the Jewish calendar ceased to
be reckoned by the visibility of the
crescent and started commencing the year earlier in the seasons. Based on the Jewish papyri
found at Elephantine, Egypt, Ab commenced on August 20 in 465 BC and August 19
in 416 BC (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 157, 159). Thus
a date of August 22 for Ab 9 in 421 BC is quite realistic.

Wacholder wants to see the destruction of the temple fall in a sabbatical
year rather than in a post-sabbatical year. [table]
Four lines of evidence he uses to
support such a conclusion are: 1) a statement by Maimonides, 2) Abodah Zarah 9b, 3)
Arakhin 12a-13b, and 4) a passage from Josephus.

1. The Statement by Maimonides. As given by Wacholder, Maimonides wrote:

You must say that the year when the second temple was last destroyed, whose
beginning commenced in Tishri, about two months after the destruction (since
the computation of Shemitot and Jubilees begins in Tishri), that year was a
Shemitah. (n. 79, p. 174)

In actuality, Maimonides did not say "that year was a Shemitah." He
said that year "was the year following a Shemitah." Wacholder
must have realized this, for his argument depends on the correct reading.

So this statement appears to say that Tishri 70 AD began a post-sabbatical
year, the first year of the Destruction Era. This makes the actual destruction
on the preceding Ab 9 fall in a sabbatical year, an idea that
apparently harmonizes with Wacholder.

Apparently? Yes, apparently. It must be pointed out that in the same passage,
Maimonides synchronizes a post-sabbatical year with 4936 AM (Era of Creation),
1487 SE (Seleucid Era), and 1107 DE (Era of Destruction of the second temple) (Sabbatical
and Jubilee Years, ch. 10, par. 4, 6).
Thus 1 DE would coincide with 381 SE and 3830 AM. In order to make these dates
fit, we must either assume an error in Maimonides's text or in his chronology.

If Tishri 70/Elul 71 was 1 DE and 381 SE, then 1 SE would begin in the fall
of 311 BC, more than a year after Seleucus entered Babylon. This seems a bit
late. It makes more sense to use a Seleucid Era for Maimonides that commences in
the fall of 312 than one that commences in the fall of 311. This requires us to
commence the era of Destruction with the year of the actual destruction rather than with the
following Tishri 1.

DE

SE

AM

Uncorrected

Corrected

1107 -1106
1

1487 -1106
381 -3801

4936 -1106
3830 -380
3450

Tishri 1176/Elul 1177 AD

Tishri 70/Elul 71 AD

Tishri 311/Elul 310 BC

Tishri 1175/Elul 1176 AD

Tishri 69/Elul 70 AD

Tishri 312/Elul 311 BC

Since Maimonides identified 1107 DE as a post-sabbatical year, we know that 1
DE was also a post-sabbatical year. This is because the difference between the
two, 1106, is evenly divisible by 7. Since 69/70 is a post-sabbatical year
according to Zuckermann, this is additional support of his position. [table]

Perhaps we should correct Maimonides's chronology instead of his text. Many rabbinical
writers have mistakenly placed the destruction of the temple in the summer of 68
or 69 AD. Suppose
Maimonides placed the destruction in 69 AD, as has been suggested by some (Edgar
Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology (1956), pp. 57, 71). The dates
in the above table would then look precisely the same. If we commence the
Destruction Era with the Tishri after the actual destruction, and if that
destruction is assumed to have occurred in August of 69, then 1 DE begins on Tishri 1, 69 AD. If on the
other hand we commence the Destruction Era with the Tishri 1 preceding the
actual destruction, and if that destruction was in August of 70 AD, then we
still are starting 1 DE with Tishri 1, 69 AD.

Therefore, whether we assume an error in Maimonides's chronology or in his text,
we still arrive at a sabbatical date that supports Zuckermann. If the temple was
destroyed in a sabbatical year, and if the temple is assumed to have been destroyed in 69 AD, then
that still makes 68/69 AD a sabbatical year.

And actually, we have to end up supporting Zuckermann's dates in one of these
two ways because of the AM date that Maimonides gives.

AM dating starts with the first conjunction of the new moon of the first year
of creation on Tishri 1. When is the first year of creation? Maimonides used a
particular form of AM dating that considered the first year to commence with a
hypothetical Tishri 1 almost a year preceding the actual Creation week (Sanctification
of the New Moon, ch. 6, sect. 8; Frank, pp. 14-19). The sixth day of creation week, the day of
Adam's "birth," fell on a second Tishri 1, the first day of a new
year. This is why Maimonides says that the "birth" of Adam took place
during "the second year after creation," for the second year had just
begun (Sabbatical and Jubilee
Years; ch. 10, sect. 2).

Each year contains twelve lunar months, plus a little extra. This extra is a
fixed amount and is used in Maimonides's calculations for the beginning of each
new year. Every year after the hypothetical first conjunction, that fixed amount is added to determine on what day
and time the next Tishri 1 will be, a day and time that coincides with
observable astronomical phenomena.

All this being so, 4936 AM becomes a fixed date of Tishri 1175/ Elul 1176 AD.
Since Maimonides said that this was a post-sabbatical year, we have solid
evidence that a scholarly twelfth-century rabbi believed that Zuckermann's
sabbatical dates were correct.

2. Abodah Zarah 9b. In Abodah Zarah 9b, we have a formula given for
calculating the year of any sabbatical cycle based on the Destruction Era. The formula is to add one year, divide by seven, and the
remainder is the year of the sabbatical cycle. If there is no remainder, then
that year happens to be a sabbatical year.

Add one year to what? This has been interpreted in a number of ways. Suppose
we add one year to the year number of the Destruction Era, using a Destruction Era that commences with Tishri 70 AD. We use this example since Wacholder's
citation of Maimonides (uncorrected textually or chronologically) indicates that this is when the
Destruction Era began. So if 70/71 AD = 1 DE, then we add 1 to 1 DE to get 2.
Since dividing 2 by 7 leaves a
remainder of 2, this makes 70/71 the second year of a sabbatical cycle. This date
agrees with Zuckermann's sabbatical dates. [table]

The formula does not work correctly when trying to verify that 1107 DE was a
post-sabbatical year. 1107 + 1 = 1108. 1108 divided by 7 leaves a remainder of 2. Thus the
formula in Abodah Zarah cannot work with Destruction Era dates if Maimonides was
correct in labeling 1107 DE as a post-sabbatical year. We are then left with the
possibility that Edgar Frank gives, that of adding one year to the difference
between the year of the actual destruction, and the year to be calculated. Thus,

This interpretation makes 1107
DE a post-sabbatical year, which is what Maimonides said it was. And it also
makes 69/70 a post-sabbatical year in agreement with Zuckermann when beginning the Destruction Era with
Tishri 1, 69 AD:

3. Arakhin 12a-13b. It is true that this portion of the
Talmud argues that the destruction of Solomon's temple took place during a
sabbatical rather than a post-sabbatical year, and that this is then used to
show that the destruction of the second temple likewise took place during a
sabbatical year. Yet several crucial points should be noted.

First of all, it would appear from the Arakhin's discussion that the
view that the destructions took place during post-sabbatical years was a common
one.

Second, Arakhin's main argument is based on a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 40:1. It
was felt that this verse synchronized the fourteenth year after the destruction
of Solomon's temple and the twenty-fifth year of the Babylonian captivity with a
jubilee year. Yet this was all based on the rabbinical revision of ancient
chronology that vaporizes 165 years of history in an attempt to avoid arriving
at a messianic or Christian interpretation of Daniel 9's 70 weeks.

The fact of the matter is that, using a legitimate chronology, there is no
way to have the fourteenth year after the destruction in 586 BC be a jubilee
year using either Zuckermann's or Wacholder's sabbatical dates. [table] According to
Wacholder, the summer of 586 was the third year of a sabbatical cycle. According
to Zuckermann it was the fourth year. Since the relationship to the sabbatical
cycle of the date of the second destruction
is derived from this faulty reasoning, it is impossible to use
it to prove Zuckermann's sabbatical dates to be in error.

4. The passage from Josephus. Wacholder writes:

Finally, a passage in Josephus implies that the year 68/69 was not
Sabbatical. According to B.J. 4:529-37, "Simon the son of Gioras,
the leader of the Zealots, invaded Idumaea in the winter of 68/69 and gained
abundant booty and laid hands on vast supplies of corn." This clearly
indicates that it was not a part of a Sabbatical season, for surely the
Idumeans by now appear to have been following the traditions of Jewish law.
(p. 176)

What Josephus wrote was this:

Thus did Simon unexpectedly march into Idumea, without bloodshed, and made
a sudden attack upon the city Hebron, and took it; wherein he got possession
of a great deal of prey, and plundered it of a vast quantity of fruit. (Wars,
bk. 4, ch. 9, sect. 7)

According to Zuckermann, the sabbatical year would have begun just prior to
the winter of 68/69. [table]
Since we aren't talking about a lengthy time period after
the non-existent harvest of a sabbatical year, then surely there would be large
stores of grain in existence. Indeed, we might expect the stores of grain to be
larger during the winter of a sabbatical year than during the winter of a
non-sabbatical year, for the supply of grain must last until the harvest of the
post-sabbatical year.

Thus the fact that Simon found large stores of grain in Idumea, if it
suggests anything at all, really suggests that the winter of 68/69 was during a
sabbatical year. And that supports Zuckermann's sabbatical dates.

Some Calendar History

At this point we suggest what appears to be part of the history of the Jewish
calendar. Ta'anith 29a put the destructions of both temples on Sundays
corresponding with Ab 9, and other Talmudic statements put these two dates 490
years apart. If we begin the months with the observation of the new crescent
moon, then astronomically speaking, Sunday, August 5, 70 AD, and Sunday, August
22, 421 BC were likely Ab 9.

At some point in the first millennium of the Christian Era, rabbinical
Judaism switched to using calculations instead of the sighting of the new
crescent. They also switched to dating the destruction of Jerusalem in 69 AD
instead of 70, and many rabbis eventually dated it in 68 AD.

If we take today's Jewish calendar and extend it back in time, we find that
Sunday, July 16, 69 AD, and Sunday, August 3, 422 BC, are identified as being Ab
9. It thus appears that the rabbis started off with the correct dating of the
second destruction, and then for some reason pushed it back one year,
synchronizing their calendar calculations to fit this change.

It does not appear that in switching to a calculated new moon and a 69
AD destruction date that they changed their understanding of the
sabbatical cycles. When they pushed the second destruction back a year,
they appear to have likewise switched from identifying the second destruction with a
post-sabbatical to identifying it with a sabbatical year. [return]

"9. Renting Land from Bar Kosba" (pp.
176-179)

Wacholder states that the rental period is therefore "five years, six
months, and ten days" (p. 179). Actually, it is seven months instead of
six, since Shevat is the eleventh month and Tishri is the seventh.

The fact that the Bar Kochba revolt began in the spring of 132 AD is further
evidence for Zuckermann's sabbatical dates, based on Wacholder's hypothesis in
his paper "Chronomessianism." His hypothesis is that the Messiah was
expected to redeem Israel during the Passover season, and during the sabbatical
year. Therefore he seeks to date the commencement of messianic movements
accordingly. In this context his paper discusses a) the beginning of John the
Baptist's ministry; b) the birth of Christ; c) the messianic Jewish prophet of
Egypt (Acts 21:38); and d) the revolt of the messianic Bar Kochba.

Regarding the Egyptian prophet, he dates the commencement of his messianic
movement in Nisan 56 AD, after the murder of the high priest in early 55 AD.
55/56 is a sabbatical year according to his calculations. Yet there presumably
is nothing that would prevent a dating of this messianic movement in Nisan 55, a
date in harmony with Zuckermann's sabbatical dates.

Regarding Bar Kochba's movement, Wacholder departs from his hypothesis by
commencing it in Nisan of 132, a year he identifies as a pre-sabbatical year.
Yet to be consistent, both the Egyptian and Bar Kochba should commence their
movements in sabbatical years. Yet if we identify 132 as being a sabbatical, we once
again find support for Zuckermann's dates. [table] [return]

"10. Three Fourth and Fifth Century Tombstone
Inscriptions in Sodom" (pp. 180-182)

Edgar Frank identifies five different ways of calculating DE, the Destruction
Era (p. 41). To
these we append the two proposed by Wacholder:

Date of
Start of 1 DE

DE
Increases on

Used
by

1.

Ab 9, 70 AD

Ab 9

Karaites

2.

Ab 9, 70 AD

Tishri 1

Maimonides

3.

Ab 9, 69 AD

Ab 9

Italian Tombstones and Yemenites

4.

Ab 9, 69 AD

Tishri 1

Abraham bar Hiyyah

5.

Ab 9, 68 AD

Ab 9

Sephardim, etc.

1.

Tishri 1, 70 AD

Tishri 1

2.

Nisan 1, 70 AD

Nisan 1

Frank's second method, as we have already seen, likely should start 1 DE on Tishri
1 of 69, not Ab 9 of 70, but this will have no effect on the following
discussion.

The first tombstone cited is dated by Wacholder in Heshvan 1, 364 DE, a post-sabbatical
year. If we use Frank's first method or either of Wacholder's methods, we end
up with Heshvan of 364 DE being in 433/434 AD, a post-sabbatical year according
to Zuckermann. [table]
None of the proposed methods allow Heshvan 364 DE to fall in
434/435 AD, and thus none of the methods allow Wacholder's sabbatical dates to be
supported by this tombstone.

Effective Date
for 1 DE

Civil Year of
Heshvan 364 DE

Zuckermann's
Year of Cycle

Wacholder's
Year of Cycle

1.

Ab 9, 70 / Ab 8, 71

433 / 434 AD

1

7

2.

Tishri 69 / Elul 70

432 / 433 AD

7

6

3.

Ab 9, 69 / Ab 8, 70

432 / 433 AD

7

6

4.

Tishri 68 / Elul 69

431 / 432 AD

6

5

5.

Ab 9, 68 / Ab 8, 69

431 / 432 AD

6

5

1.

Tishri 70 / Elul 71

433 / 434 AD

1

7

2.

Nisan 70 / Adar 71

433 / 434 AD

1

7

The third tombstone cited is dated on Tuesday, Elul 11, 435 DE, a sabbatical
year. Ignoring the day of the week for a moment, we find that Frank's first two
methods support Wacholder (503/504 AD), his second two support Zuckermann
(502/503 AD), and Wacholder's second method supports himself. [table]

Effective Date
for 1 DE

Civil Year of
Elul 435 DE

Zuckermann's
Year of Cycle

Wacholder's
Year of Cycle

1.

Ab 9, 70 / Ab 8, 71

503 / 504 AD

1

7

2.

Tishri 69 / Elul 70

503 / 504 AD

1

7

3.

Ab 9, 69 / Ab 8, 70

502 / 503 AD

7

6

4.

Tishri 68 / Elul 69

502 / 503 AD

7

6

5.

Ab 9, 68 / Ab 8, 69

501 / 502 AD

6

5

1.

Tishri 70 / Elul 71

504 / 505 AD

2

1

2.

Nisan 70 / Adar 71

503 / 504 AD

1

7

Using today's rabbinical calendar, we find that Elul 11 in 503 AD was on a
Wednesday (Aug. 20), and in 504 AD on a Monday (Sept. 6).

Frank mentions that some have concluded from this tombstone that the calendar
rule Lo ADU Rosh had not yet been adopted in 503 AD. This rule calls for
the postponement of the beginning of the year by one day if Tishri 1 were to
fall on a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. If we remove the effect of this rule
upon these dates, then Elul 11 in 503 AD falls on a Tuesday (Aug. 19). In 504 AD
it would still likely fall on a Monday (not Sunday) since probably the preceding
Kislev would then have had thirty days instead of twenty-nine.

Frank proposes another method to still have Elul 11 fall on a Tuesday in 503
AD, by having Elul have 30 days instead of 29. This essentially requires both
Kislev and Heshvan to have only twenty-nine days as well as Lo ADU Rosh
to be applied.

At any rate, this third tombstone, unemended, allows an Elul 11 in 502/503 AD
to fall on a Tuesday. That being so, it supports Zuckermann's sabbatical dates,
since that year was a sabbatical year according to him. Since Elul 11 could not
have fallen on a Tuesday in 503/504, this tombstone can't be used to support
Wacholder's sabbatical dates.

Wacholder postulates an emendation of this tombstone that would date it in the second year of a sabbatical
cycle. This does not help his case. The only emendation that would help is one
that dates it in the sixth year of a sabbatical cycle. This would allow it
to synchronize with his pre-sabbatical year of 502/503 AD. [table] Unemended in this
way, it can only support Zuckermann. And if Frank is correct that there are two tombstones with this
date (p. 38), then it is unlikely that
the engraver would make the same error twice.

Effective Date
for 1 DE

Civil Year of
Elul 435 DE

Zuckermann's
Year of Cycle

Wacholder's
Year of Cycle

1.

Ab 9, 70 / Ab 8, 71

503 / 504 AD

1

7

2.

Tishri 69 / Elul 70

503 / 504 AD

1

7

3.

Ab 9, 69 / Ab 8, 70

502 / 503 AD

7

6

4.

Tishri 68 / Elul 69

502 / 503 AD

7

6

5.

Ab 9, 68 / Ab 8, 69

501 / 502 AD

6

5

1.

Tishri 70 / Elul 71

504 / 505 AD

1

7

2.

Nisan 70 / Adar 71

503 / 504 AD

1

7

The second tombstone cited by Wacholder is dated in the third year of a sabbatical cycle, in the
month of Shevat, 300 DE. Wacholder proposes emending the date to read 303 DE by
adding the word for 3. Yet 303 DE is the third year of a sabbatical cycle only when
using Zuckermann's sabbatical dates. If one uses Frank's first method or either
of Wacholder's methods of calculating DE, then 303 DE becomes 372/373 AD, the
third year of a sabbatical cycle according to Zuckermann. [table]

Effective Date
for 1 DE

Civil Year of
Shevat 300 DE

Zuckermann's
Year of Cycle

Wacholder's
Year of Cycle

1.

Ab 9, 70 / Ab 8, 71

369 / 370 AD

7

6

2.

Tishri 69 / Elul 70

368 / 369 AD

6

5

3.

Ab 9, 69 / Ab 8, 70

368 / 369 AD

6

5

4.

Tishri 68 / Elul 69

367 / 368 AD

5

4

5.

Ab 9, 68 / Ab 8, 69

367 / 368 AD

5

4

1.

Tishri 70 / Elul 71

369 / 370 AD

7

6

2.

Nisan 70 / Adar 71

369 / 370 AD

7

6

Effective Date
for 1 DE

Civil Year of
Shevat 303 DE

Zuckermann's
Year of Cycle

Wacholder's
Year of Cycle

1.

Ab 9, 70 / Ab 8, 71

372 / 373 AD

3

2

2.

Tishri 69 / Elul 70

371 / 372 AD

2

1

3.

Ab 9, 69 / Ab 8, 70

371 / 372 AD

2

1

4.

Tishri 68 / Elul 69

370 / 371 AD

1

7

5.

Ab 9, 68 / Ab 8, 69

370 / 371 AD

1

7

1.

Tishri 70 / Elul 71

372 / 373 AD

3

2

2.

Nisan 70 / Adar 71

372 / 373 AD

3

2

Wacholder says that Umberto Cassuto has proposed the addition of a single
letter, a conjunction, in order to make the tombstone read 346 DE, an idea he
rejects. Yet this certainly seems plausible, especially since it doesn't require
adding words to the text. (It would, though, require using letters to represent
the number forty-six rather than words.) Depending on the method used to
calculate DE, either Zuckermann or Wacholder could be supported using this
emendation. [table]